The Federal Coalition has noted the announcement yesterday of an agreement between the signatories to Tasmania’s forestry negotiation.

“The Coalition will await the Federal Government’s response to the document but we cannot guarantee our support for any legislative changes,” Coalition Forestry Spokesman Senator Richard Colbeck said.

“The real question the Coalition has is: will the forest protests stop or is this just another step in a game to close down a sustainable industry?

“A deal means that protests in the forests, protests in our markets and protests in the board rooms should all stop.

“Comments by the Greens this morning, and the absence of upfront participation by the Wilderness Society, give us no confidence.

“The forest industry has put a lot on the table but it remains unclear whether the environment movement will uphold its side of the bargain.

“A major concern of the Coalition is that this Agreement will drive foresters and our highly sustainable native forest industry out of the forest and onto our farm land. There is nowhere else to grow the plantations that they would need to transition their businesses.

“It is estimated that up to an additional 100,000 ha of plantations will be required in Tasmania if the industry is to transition in the way the ENGO’s and the Greens are demanding.

“There is every prospect that the Greens and the ENGO’s will be waiting for them and filling the community with horror stories of chemical use, monocultures and food shortages.

“The ability of this agreement to bring peace to the forests and allow Tasmania to move forward with a viable timber industry remains uncertain,” Senator Colbeck said.

The Tasmanian Greens today have called for calm in the wake of the Forest Principles Signatories Agreement, released yesterday by facilitator Mr Bill Kelty, saying it is important that the content of the Agreement is assessed and scrutinised calmly, rather than have ill-informed responses creating unnecessary confusion and fear.

Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said that he will be receiving a briefing from Bill Kelty sometime today, just as Mr Kelty will also be briefing The Premier, Lara Giddings, and Forests Minister, Bryan Green.

“The Tasmanian Greens will be investing the time into scrutinising this document, its details and potential ramifications thoroughly and calmly, as that is the responsible approach to take, rather than resorting to ill-informed scare-mongering,” Mr McKim said.

“The intent of the Forest Principles process, which involved industry, union and environment groups representatives, was to develop a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to protect our high conservation value forests, and have a transition to a sustainable timber industry.”

“The groups and Mr Kelty have now released the plan that they think will deliver that objective, and it is now appropriate for that work to be examined.”

“Tasmania’s is currently in an economic transition away from an over-reliance on extractive resource-based industries to the modern 21st century sustainable industries, and the protection of our high conservation value forests and putting our timber industry onto a viable and sustainable footing is an essential part of our economic transition.”

“This transition is also fundamental to developing regional economies which are more robust, diversified and able to withstand the vagaries of market-forces.”

“The Greens will be seeking to discuss the Signatories Agreement with stakeholders before we formalise our position in relation to this Agreement.”

Mr McKim also reiterated that the Greens, like other political parties, were not directly involved in the Kelty process as they are not signatories to the Forest Principles of Agreements.

The Premier, Lara Giddings, and the Minister for Resources, Bryan Green, said today’s discussions with Statement of Principles facilitator, Bill Kelty, had been constructive.
Ms Giddings said the State Government is still working through the detail of the draft agreement, which is yet to be signed by all parties.

“Today was an opportunity to speak directly with Mr Kelty about the detail of the document, the expectations of the various parties and the challenges involved in implementing a long-term solution to the forest debate in Tasmania,” Ms Giddings said.

“This is a process of national significance and the Federal Government will have an important part to play in the transition process.

“As such, we will also be having discussions with the Commonwealth in the near future.

“It is important to acknowledge that there is still some way to go to achieving the dual goal of securing the future of the forest industry while protecting areas of High Conservation Value forest.”

Resources Minister, Bryan Green, said the State Government would be carefully considering the detail of the draft agreement and its implications for the forest industry and rural and regional communities.

“We recognise the importance of transitioning to a forest industry that is sustainable for the long term, but the Government has a strong interest in ensuring that timber workers, their families and their communities are supported through this process,” Mr Green said.

“We will stand shoulder to shoulder with timber communities to assist them through this process.

“We will not abandon hard working timber workers or the communities that rely on the industry to remain viable and vibrant.”

The Tasmanian Greens today addressed a forest contractors rally in Hobart, saying these contractors are the real face of this industry, and they and their families, are facing financial ruin right now due to both Labor and the Liberals refusing to recognise that exit assistance is needed now instead of propping up an dying and unviable industry.

Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that the contractors’ presence in Hobart today, should send a strong and powerful message to the Premier, the Forestry Minister, and the Liberal party that proper, fair and equitable exit assistance must be provided to those who want out.

“The forestry contractors rally in Hobart sought to put the case of the workers who face being left on the scrap heap due to failed policies of Labor, Liberal and the timber barons,” Mr Booth said.

“Premier Giddings is in a position to do something for these forestry contractors. Everything is not fine, and these forestry contractors are seriously concerned for their future, and the future of their families, as proper exit assistance for this failing industry is still not prioritised.”

“Representatives of the so-called industry organisations such as TCA, FIAT, and the Liberal party, don’t face losing their houses, and they are also distorting the real issues affecting these contractors on the ground.”

“It about time the Premier listened to all players in the industry rather than just listening to those who represent the view of the big timber barons who have a vested interest in propping up with public money on unviable industry,” Mr Booth said.

The Gillard Government needs to take a very close look at the economic impact of the agreement released this week by the Tasmanian forest talks negotiator.

“The impact of this agreement is to effectively halve the size of Tasmania’s forestry industry and this will have consequences for more than just sawmills and contractors,” Coalition Forestry spokesman Richard Colbeck said.

“It will have the same halving impact on everyone associated with the sector - equipment, maintenance, finance, accounting and any other services. None of these businesses have been represented in the talks.

“The forest industry contributes $1.6 billion to the Tasmanian economy every year. This deal will effectively wipe a whopping $800 million off Tasmania’s GDP at a time we can least afford it.

“This deal also places huge question marks over some of Tasmania’s most highly prospective mineral resources, with ENGO demands that their claimed HCV zones be placed immediately into National Parks.

“There has been no consideration given to the impact this deal will have on the mining industry - or perhaps crippling the mining industry was another goal of the ENGOs through this process.

“There is little wonder that we are again hearing concerns about sovereign risk in Australia, particularly in Tasmania,” Senator Colbeck said.

FT also trod on some toes by selling whole logs to China. No wonder there are calls for them to be closed down - certainly management should change.

Posted by salamander on 24/06/11 at 03:18 PM

Tasmanian Greens Leader Mr McKim states in his MR: “The Tasmanian Greens will be investing the time into scrutinising this document, its details and potential ramifications thoroughly and calmly, as that is the responsible approach to take, rather than resorting to ill-informed scare-mongering.”

“The Greens will be seeking to discuss the Signatories Agreement with stakeholders before we formalise our position in relation to this Agreement.”

Tasmanian Public & Environmental Health Network (a member of ET Inc.) is looking forward to tak-ing part in those stakeholder discussions with his Party.

Posted by David Obendorf on 24/06/11 at 06:20 PM

Phill Pullinger has to sign the agreement AGAIN? That will be another two signatures in behalf of ET and the Wildos. This is Phill’s 8th signing. His right hand is getting tired but Phill can cope.

Posted by Join The Dots on 24/06/11 at 06:57 PM

Minister McKim has gone all clucky. Motherhood statements abound. Nearly everyone can agree with motherhood statements.
The nitty gritty is the gunns pulp proposition is in the Launceston Tamar Valley and consequences throughout Tasmania. Any unequivocal answers for any of that? Or even any equivocal ones. Anytime sooner would be preferable.
Otherwise the paper agreement is considered no more than a sharing of information. There are not 9 signatories, there are only two. The community has not been consulted.

Posted by russell on 24/06/11 at 07:31 PM

Just what sort of ‘a’ pulp mill do these high contracting parties have in mind? The ENGOs,(both of them), say not the Tamar Valley one as proposed by Gunns. So where is this putative pulp mill to be? What size did they envisage? Where will the feedstock come from? Will it be FSC? How will it compete with South American ones? How much government money will it need in subsidies? How many people will it employ when running? What is its assumed life span?
What environmental safeguards will it require if not to be the much examined Long Reach one?
Where is the detail in the Statement of Principles? Those present at the Royal Oak meeting when the ENGO participants said their piece will remember that they didn’t have answers to any of the questions that needed detailed responses
Do any of these gentlemen have any idea of the can of worms that they’ve opened?

Posted by Mike Adams on 24/06/11 at 09:24 PM

After the signing of the Statement of Principles, that is if it is completed, don’t forget it will be presented to the State Government when FT will be consulted with.
The current SOP is useless, even with all of the signatures as I cannot possibly imagine FT conceding to the loss of 420,000ha of HCV forest rich in high quality sawlogs as currently demanded by Environment Tasmania.
I can imagine a reduction in the current 330,000 CM3 State allocation of Cat1, Cat8 sawlog but it will not be as low as ET’s Mr Pullingers 155,000CM3 magic figure, definitely not that low I can assure him of that.
The native forest sawmilling industry will not bw supplemented by plantation based eucalypt which is unsuitable as a saleable sawn timber product.
Any decent State Government would not be silly enough to see FT put out of business over the myobic SOP.

Posted by Robin Halton on 24/06/11 at 10:54 PM

It would be nice if some of the political wheeler dealers, …. Apparently! not involved in any of the principles of forestry round table discussions … could actually look at and consider those whose water catchments, rare, threatened, endangered species, long term sustainability, could also be considered. It ain’t just about the contractors!!!! But we’ve never got to the point of realistically looking at people/communities, their overall opinions have we??

Posted by Claire Gilmour on 25/06/11 at 12:25 AM

It’s not the opened ‘can of worms’ Mike [Comment #5] that these unilateral ENGOs are terribly worried about; it is all those pesky ‘elephants in corner of the living room’ that they refuse to see! ;-)

Posted by David Obendorf on 25/06/11 at 12:36 AM

Who voted for the Greens’ Pulp Future for Tasmania? For that is surely the reality underpinning Nick McKim’s vision stated above:

“...to develop a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to protect our high conservation value forests, and have a transition to a sustainable timber industry.”

I challenge faithful supporters to name any alternative but the transition to pulp ever put forward by McKim.

“It is estimated that up to an additional 100,000 ha of plantations will be required in Tasmania if the industry is to transition in the way the ENGO’s and the Greens are demanding.”

Colbeck describes the duplicitous stand taken when the Greens back an expanded plantation estate:

“There is every prospect that the Greens and the ENGO’s will be waiting for them and filling the community with horror stories of chemical use, monocultures and food shortages.

For once, I have to agree with the Liberals. Kim Booth stood before the crowd at Royal Park last month decrying the pulp mill that is a cornerstone of his leader’s vision. McKim will stress that it’s not THAT pulp mill that’s central to his vision. But come on, Kim, as Mike Adams asks in desperation: which pulp mill is the one that will drive the transition out of native forests?

Kim Booth’s leader has never attempted to answer this central question.

Premier Giddings has announced that the Statement of Principles is all about getting Gunns Tamar Valley pulp mill up. We can repeat this over and over to Nick McKim and Bob Brown.

Yet Green support for the Statement of Principles remains unswerving. Here is McKim’s response: “..there is still some way to go to achieving the dual goal of securing the future of the forest industry while protecting areas of High Conservation Value forest.”

Now, come on! Lifetime Green voters like me have tried to be faithful but there is a rank smell of duplicity here.

There is a price for HCV forest in the Principles, and all but the Greens and “e”NGOs have stated it.

How long do they think their remaining supporters can turn a blind eye to it? - Until major investment rolls in for the pulp mill and construction is underway?

Posted by Bob Kendra on 25/06/11 at 06:50 AM

Gunns Lts seem to be saying, “Give us compensation by June 30 to pay off our debt or we won’t sell the Triabunna mill and bring the industry to a halt.”

Posted by David Mohr on 25/06/11 at 07:10 AM

We need to address the causes of the problem that is there now.
Contractors only exist because Gunns and FT find it cheaper to have them there. They don’t need to worry about holiday pay , sick pay, workers compensation, unfair dismissals etc.
Gunns and FT and any other company only hire contractors to do the dirty work because it is cheap and they are easy to get rid of.
The causes of the problems we have now is Greed.
Woodchipping our forests is driven by Greed, ignoring good environmental controls is driven by Greed.
It is a fact that now in Pine plantations riparian zones are ignored, machines are using creek beds as tracks, no new vegetation is being put in to repair past damage and what was fine 25 to 30 years ago is being continued.
It is time that the forests were valued for what they are, providers of clean air, water, shelter and building materials.
The forests need to be managed with all those aspects taken into account.
At the moment they are only treated as mines.
If there is a massive lock up of forests under the new SOP agreement, will this mean that what is left is mined even more severely.
This is my concern.
We need good forestry not mining.
We need workers who are paid well to do a good job, with security of being employees if they want.
Time to move away from the throw away society, that model has proven to be a giant dud.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 25/06/11 at 08:22 AM

Pete Godfrey (11) Is right. This will lead to terrible destruction in the non-HCVF areas. These areas will become dust bowls of high rotation pulp wood production for an oversupplied market. The only time any of these negotiators go into a forest is for a photo op. The latest SoP is a dogs breakfast. They have named the Ta An facilities but are too scared to name the Gunns facilities. Why couldn’t Bob Brown come up with a ‘coast to coast’ conservation plan for Tasmania rather than this ‘museum forest’ concept?

Posted by Join The Dots on 25/06/11 at 09:45 AM

If Tasmania could adopt effective anti-racketeering legislation, and import a justice system to enforce it, we’d have a start.

Colbeck might consider that halving the size of Tassie’s logging industry would still leave it about three times the size of Victoria’s, despite having less than half the forest area.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 25/06/11 at 05:05 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.